I think you are a Pakistani. Then I don't know why my calling India with its proper name Bharat makes you so uneasy that you had to specifically mention it here. Calling India Bharat is like calling Egypt Misr. Nothing offensive. But if it is hurtful for some "Pakistanis" then I don't have problem calling it India. Ok? :)
Comparing Muslim who ruled South Asia for hundred of years with Taliban is as much laughable as it is preposterous. Most of those rulers were not not religious at all.
My point, which did not make you think, was that they were secular, and they invaded India for the same reasons which everyone else has used throughout history to invade other areas. One of the reasons could be looting but it is extremely wrong to say that it was the ONLY reason. And if one thinks ALL Muslim rulers came to loot then why not say the same thing about all other conquerors from history? Why not Alexander? Why not Conquistadors? Why not Sikh Ranjeet Singh? Why not Marathas? Why not Cyrus? etc. etc.?
The reasons Muslim rulers invaded India are complex. There were tens of rulers, and they continued arriving for hundreds of years. Some were religious, some were secular, some were in-between.
So their reasons of invasion can not be lumped together as looting, or propagation of religion.
If invasion of foreign lands makes someone evil then why single out Muslims alone? They were as good and as bad as other conquerors throughout the history. And their invasions had various reasons.
That is the point.
U need to watch for few things, history of Muslim rulers/ conquerer is greartly distorted and fabricated during British Raj of Subcontinent...
it is Muslims of Indo-Pak region who somehow managed to keep track otherwise in Central Asia, Muslims were totally denied any access to their history.
During British Raj, it was common thing to make fun of ex-rulers of Sub Continent...for instance even today's army formation of Pakistan, Sobay-dar, Jamadaar etc are under the commissioned officers, whereas they were governor and Colonel level officers in Sub-continent army formation.
Many were affected and they did accepted what was told to them about Muslim invaders..specially about Mehmood Of Ghazna...but these critics often go silence when you ask them why did Mehmood attacked Somnaath if looting was all he wanted???...
See the route of Somnath from Ghazni, desert and desert only...the opponents could have simply killed the whole Ghazni army by ambushing them and destroying their water reserves...2ndly, no bigger or important temple in the way... So why he tried for Somnaath???
Muslim invaders did have lust for land, they do wanted to expand their kingdoms...and that was the trend then and even now...
I haven’t read Pakistani books but by seeing the discussion I guess many posts about Pakistani books too could be twisted because it is quite visible that we are not even trying to check what we are saying. @hanibal you are right. We shall classify these groups as those who were with British they were either benefitted or fearful and those who were against they were angry or had vested interest.
Those who supported or sympathetic towards British were –
Rulers and chieftains- reason I have explained in a post.
Many big Zamindars- They were afraid that breakage of law and order is not in their favor. They were exploitative and thus targeted, attacked and their record books were burned.
Intelligentia/ educated class. They were of the opinion that the British rule is necessary for modernization and to eradicate social evils.
Those who were against were –
Rulers – Those rulers whose territory/property was lost or taken by British, whose pensions were stopped. This was the chance for them to regain what they had lost.
Sepoys – Although the immediate cause was that cartridge rumor but they were quite angry with
Britishers for salary, promotion, allowance and administration etc. There is a history of revolts prior to 1857.
Artisans/peasants etc - Artisans had lost their traditional business and peasants were angry due to high revenue charged and several other reasons like interference in religion etc
All in all there were economic, political, administrative and social-religious reasons.
We can discuss this revolt at length in a separate thread.
Do you think it was ever possible to rule on the said terms?
Easterly-westerly bole toh hawabaji kar raho ho bade bhiya. This is illogical and I don’t think India has ever made such claim.
you can find history books of state board on internet. Have a look on Indian version of history.
Yes, they wanted salary irrespective of whose Army is this. There were sepoy revolts other than that of 1857 revolt regions like Deccan, Bengal. And in 1857 revolted sepoys approached the Mughal emporer Bahadur Shah Zafar, declared their leader and Emporer, all revolted rulers accepted him as Emporer and their leader. The reason is – legitimacy. The political and administrative structure was largely as it was in Mughal times. During fall of Mughal empire, when they practically lost control, no one came forward to takeover and become emporer because they find it difficult to unite the whole territory on political lines and they derive their legitimacy from Mughals. For that time, we can classify two groups in Mughal empire. One who got power to rule from inheritance/succession and other who were made governors so both derived legitimacy from Mughals. Can you give reference of your example. Delhi was focal point of the revolt and I think was heavily guarded.
Bhaisahab unke ane se kafi pahle Islam India a chuka tha people had trade relations since centuries, migration had started long ago though religion spread under State patronage.
Kisi bhi arji-pharji website se utha ke chipka do. Thodi khojbeen kar liya karo sarkar. This is not a GOI website. They (Indian books) don’t teach history like this. They don’t portray history as religion A v/s Religion B, Rulers irrespective of their faith joined hands and fought with their rivals for their interest. Where they say forced conversion? 1857 revolt is dealt in detail in old NCERT book, read it once.
Whether they needed or not it was always a conquest for power or expanding kingdom or looting wealth. Patriotism was essentially territorial. Local rulers were constantly fighting with each other for the said reasons and also on petty issues. Their defense was weak. New Modern NCERT says construction of religious palaces were a symbol of strength and might. Those were destructed during war were given grants and repaired. It infact in Bhakti-Sufi traditions chapter shows a excerpt from a letter written by Aurangzeb in which he was giving some money to a Jogi with respect. Old NCERT editions also says that Aurangzeb gave grants and aids to temples. It in social and cultural life section of ‘India in 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century’ chapter says “A large number of Hindus worshipped Muslim saints and many muslims showed equal veneration for Hindu gods and saints. Many local cults and shrines had both Hindu and Muslims followers. Muslims rulers, nobels and commoners joyfully joined in the Hindu festivals such as Holi, Diwali, and Durga Puja, just as Hindus participated in the Muharram possessions and Hindu officials and zamindars presided at other Muslim festivals. The Marathas supported the Shrine of Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti in Ajmer and the Raja of Tanjore supported the shrine of Shaikh Shahul Hamid at Nagore. We have already seen how Tipu gave financial support to the Shringeri Temple as also other temples”
I think a historical ruler should be studied broadly under following points.
Administrative qualities/policies and reforms
Army strength and winning ability
Public welfare policies and attitude of State towards it’s citizens.
Financial/revenue policies and reforms.
Contribution in development of Arts, culture and science.
The kaur, you can say Babur came for looting but Mughals made India their home, they contributed in welfare activities, development of literature, music, architecture etc unlike Nadir Shah. I would say no empire became big without bloodshed and revolts were suppressed by force.
I think every country has a history to tell. Main centers of Harappa and Mohanjodaro are located in present day Pakistan. They have rich culture to tell, Hindustani music gharana, Sufi center Ajodhan, Data Durbar, Nankana Saheb, poets, mighty kings, freedom fighters and much more. We share same history and culture though our narrative of history are different and might be twisted. And after all public jo heer-ranjha, sohni-mahival ki kasme khati hai..bollywood me gane bante hain..log drama/plays banate hain..ye sab ashique pyar wale kisse kaha ke hain J Apne Romio-Juliot toh ye hi hn.
Well, I would like to deviate the discussion a little and try to focus on what we have learned from history and upto what extent, my question to you is India centric though it is Pak affairs thread.
So,
Just two years ago, Mr. S. Bharti, the then law minister of Delhi along with his arrey-chharrey raided African women at midnight, they forced them to give urine sample for drug test and demanded police to register a case against the women for prostitution and drugs. I don’t understand by what authority he did it. To my surprise, CM Mr. A. Kejriwal instead of dismissing the minister, sat on sit-in demanding action against police officers for not cooperating and not filing FIR against the women, he is an ex-bureaucrat so I suppose he should have better understanding of history and constitution and what does women liberty and the term harassment mean. I think this promotes racism. Our historical leaders have fought hard against social evils.
Recently a BJP leader filed a case of sedition against JNU president and other students who allegedly shouted anti-national slogans. Gandhi ji at time of his sedition trials said that section 124 (A) is designed to suppress liberty of citizens. He further said that that affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. Sec 124 A is still in IPC ,though interpretation of words is changed, it is a still tool to harass people. I have seen many on fb shouting shut down JNU. One my senior also said this his argument was varsity are the place to study and they should not involve in politics. They in the name of PhD using subsidized hostel and scholarship which all comes from taxpayers pocket and what they do is netagiri and JNU is a long history of anti-national activities. He says we govt should convert it into medical college. Some critic argue that Lord Curzon’s greater control over varsities by Indian university act 1904 was to limit students only to studies, he wanted educated to be loyal puppets of govt. I think students and citizens in general are supposed to be free thinkers. This has generated a debate of liberal nationalism versus extremist nationalism.
What do you think how much we have learned from history and where do you see India after 60-70 years keeping past and present happenings in mind. As you said nobody studies history seriously, forgetting and not learning from history could be disastrous.
[quote]
Easterly-westerly bole toh hawabaji kar raho ho bade bhiya. This is illogical and I don’t think India has ever made such claim.
[/quote]
Your so-called intellectuals or the saffron educated have. Why would I come up with such number? Of course, it is a laughable claim as there would no hindus left or more like native americans unless hindus were breeding like fungus.